Trump, our pathetic POTUS, is setting policy in this regard right now. And that, in a nutshell, is Americans have no privacy. Otherwise his pal, Putin, would have to own up to Russia's hacking of the last election and they'd have to quit planning on whatever deviltry they've got up their sleeve for November. So don't look for any government agency to speak or act for the benefit of consumers in the near future. Americans are now being held hostage by big business. And those fat cats are laughing all the way to the bank.
When it comes to government agency data, 5 USC 552a, records of individuals, is controlling. It is supposed to be a code of fair information practices. 5 USC 552a includes not just disclosure of information, but also when records about individuals are created. For instance, subsection (e)(1) creates an authorization to sue the Department of Justice for creating booking records, warrant records or imprisonment records if there is no authorized law enforcement function. However, the law does not work as it is actually implemented. I was arrested three times and detained for 5 months by DoJ without being charged by DoJ and without an affidavit of probable cause. I sued under 5 USC 552a and the DoJ simply denied that it violated the law. The judge did not rule on my summary judgment motion. The judge ruled that DoJ can detain anyone because the USMS serves civil complaints for people who file in court and are ruled paupers. I did not apply for pauper status and USMS never served my civil papers. None the less, the DoJ claims an exemption from 5 USC 552a (e)(1) on the basis that Judge Bates ruled that USMS service of in pauper complaints is a law enforcement function.
oh please, in our moment of alternative facts and truth isn't truth, your worried about privacy. One more crazy person ready for Trump's new asylums.
It’s a lot like the term “Fair and balanced.”
I feel that if you have to make it a slogan like that, it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
I agree with Mr. Turow's idea that the F.T.C. issue rulings covering Privacy Policies.
That said, it is shocking how many people fail to comprehend even the basics of the agreements that they sign.
I don't believe that more schooling would help. I suspect that a greater percentage of college graduates fail in this regard, than do non-college graduates.
Duh...I learned at a young bureaucrat age, never put anything in writing you wouldn't want to see on the front page of the paper
Still adhere to that at the age of 71..
Let's just dispel the notion that anything one does on line; ANYTHING, ...anything that one does on line is "private." Anything you post on line may be subject to scrutiny, analysis or targeted advertising. That is a fact. Full stop. ...period.
If you don't like those odds then don't join Facebook or any other social media. Heck, don't even surf the Web if you're worried that someone is going to review your penchant for naughty penguins in eveningwear.
They don't call it social media for nothing. Anything you post on line is PUBLIC. ...no matter how much you'd like to think otherwise.
Having read a couple of "Privacy Policy" statements, and skimmed several others, I found it obvious that they are all about the same, and can be summed up as "We collect as much as we can and do whatever we want with it." Heck, pop-up ads on your web browser should tell you that! Your survey results amaze me. No wonder corporations get away with turning this country into a plutocracy: no one pays attention!
Tech companies would tell you that you could decline their contract, but the reality is that even the government assumes/requires that a citizen will agree to the terms and conditions of Adobe, for example.
I wish this article offered an alternative term.
Let's break -up, bust -up and lock -up the Silicon Valley new "robber barons" "malefactors of great wealth" and their companies along with their barbarian pirate organized corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare cohorts in the telecommunications industry. Prison is what they need and deserve as a deterrent to attract and focus their attention. Plus crippling fines.
Physicians, hospitals, out patient radiology centers etc. are the MOST DANGEROUS privacy invaders & potential thieves of all time.
I always refuse to allow them to make "scans" and/or "photocopies" of my photo ID: passport, driver's license, etc. They all become indignant and NASTY. Each time I ask: "why do you need a scan or photocopy?" Their universal reply is: "well, that's our policy! And, we do not know who you REALLY are!"
My response: "well, I do NOT know who YOU really are, which endangers me. YOU could be involved in an identity theft ring. Therefore, since YOU are NOT law enforcement, you are NOT entitled to take possession nor copy my photo id. I will hold it so you can see the photo. Otherwise, cancel the appt, tests, surgery etc.
I win, every single time.
2
We need the FTC AND Congress to institute news regulations and laws. For example, it is indeed an invasion of privacy - and should be illegal- that Google and many apps track me without my knowdkge or consent.
L.Gott
So it's basically like the Trump administration's disclosure policy. Got it!
It should be called a "Surveillance Policy"
1
Come on, nothing is sacred (or secret) anymore. The electric cat is out of the bag. And nothing will stop it ever. Just a fact of life.
1
Privacy is not an option in this day and age.Cities are full of cameras as are busnesses so you constantly have a lens focused on you.Banks,insurance companies and web sites let you know about your “privacy” in lots of text written in very small indecipherable print.People really do not expect privacy and maybe do not value it as we once did.Years ago we could opt out of a listing in the phone book-our only exposure to public scrutiny was via the city tax rolls.
If you don't want your "personal" information to be used or shared, don't use the internet. In most cases, your agreement with a site's "privacy policy" -- even by simply continuing to access the site -- means you'll have no privacy. Follow the dictate that lawyers give to clients (which is typically ignored): Don't say or do anything you wouldn't like to have disclosed in The New York Times.
The term "privacy policy", as used on most corporate websites, is a perfect example of the Newspeak concepts of "blackwhite" (i.e., that black is white and that there was never a difference between the two) and "doublethink". The masters of Orwell's Oceania would have been proud.
I look at my 10-month-old granddaughter, and imagine her one day asking me, "Pappaw, what was 'privacy'?"
Fortunately, I have a few more years before I have to explain that coffin to her.
1
The best practice is not to tell anyone anything, period!
1
Although many companies bid for ten of thousands subscribers online daily effortless, just marketing or targeting.
Call it what it is: “Surveillance Policy”
1
How can anything be kept private now? As far as I'm concerned "Privacy" and "Secrets" were passe right after "Joe Cargo" Valachi rolled over on the Mafia .. It was all down hill from then.
Call it "How We Collect and Sell Your Personal Information". That's clear and accurate.
1
Kind of like a "document retention" policy
I have been working in computer networking for the past 25 years. It just astounds me how people will take the word of a guy down the hallway in your apartment building or your office or a website as gospel (even my own parents).
BUT!
If you care to listen for just a second, understand one thing about the Internet. It was conceived, engineered, built and is operated as a PUBLIC medium! YOU HAVE NO PRIVACY SO STOP ASSUMING THAT YOU DO AND ASSUME YOU DON’T! Work from that assumption. That way you will never be surprised when your private stuff is not private.
For example, say you visit a website and your browser even says its a trusted site (green URL). That doesn’t mean your session to that website is private, it actually means explicitly that the session (your house’s public IP to the website IP) was a public transaction or ‘flow’ in geek speak. Servers that you’ve never heard of are collecting that information, because like all Internet traffic it’s a public medium and in order to make the Internet work properly we publicly share this information worldwide so we can continue to improve it. Even if the website promised not to share your info and encrypted your data, the public Internet knows you were there. The more you know...maybe? I hope I scared you just a little actually.
Don’t get me started on net neutrality either...
6
Just more slop on the fact that corporations have way too much power and influence. And that the average person is way too complacent.
NYT has a "privacy" policy too ... worth a read. Frightening.
https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014892108-Privacy-policy
In my law practice I conduct mortgage closings for purchasers of real estate who often finance those purchases with any one of a wide array of lenders. All of the lenders provide some form of a 'privacy policy' notification to the borrowers. I commonly refer to those policy disclosures as "Invasion of Privacy Policies" as they explain what is to be invaded more than what is to be kept private.
especially true of HIPPA when it comes to the U.S.A.'s dementia'd elderly. In other words our 'so honest' legal community conspires with the HIPPA protected commercial aspect of sucking the elder dry with out ANY benefit of family oversight. Note: HIPPA allows: the words 'elder at risk' to bring out the lying legal money seeking (sucking) entities along with those 'make em die quick and quiet' antipsychotic drugs.
1
Oh come on. The idea that each consumer should read and “manage” every Privacy Policy or Information Practice Statement from every entity with which they transact business on the internet is preposterous. It would be like going through estate planning every day of your life. The national aggregate of lost time and productivity spent weekly would be staggering.
Clearly there should be Federal commerce regulations protecting consumers’ privacy, and companies should expect to be sued if they disregard them. But that would require an administration that’s interested in protecting consumers…
Jeez, all you need to do is scan the agreement to discover that they won't be protecting your information. You have to decide if you want to participate. Just be wary. Some "services" are not worth it. You can do without them.
Protection of human privacy in the modern age?
I don't see how privacy can be protected without entering a paradoxical, contradictory, ironical situation: To protect human privacy we would have to have corporate and governmental (public and private) entities dedicated to something like detective work, uncovering every invasion of privacy and making it public, known to the citizenry, but to do this would itself be a vast invasion of privacy, a vast "uncovering", a laying bare of all the criss-crossing lines and layered structures of power in society.
But not to do this is to arrive at where we are today: No such detective type work at all but rather public and private entities invading our privacy daily while claiming that all of it is legal and that they are dedicated to protecting us. Which of course is itself an ironical and dangerous situation: They see into us and we have to take their word that they are respecting our privacy, that privacy is not being compromised.
As anyone with basic reasoning skills can see, the entirety of the situation is a false one, a dialogue which insists privacy can exist and be protected while every day privacy is departing and really the only solution is to make everything out in the open in as ethical a manner as possible. It's actually comical, like a person whose clothes are falling off and hands are grabbing now here, now there, trying to cover up this and that and arguing which is more important, to be protected, yet...we are naked.
Data collecting and usage policy would be less misleading, but would more people read it anyway?
There is real danger for individuals when their data is collected.
From personal data you can determine a persons sexual orientation, political beliefs, medical issues and so much more.
People say "I don't have any thing to hide, I'm not doing anything wrong". As we know, rules change....in some places and at different times it could be a death sentence if you have the wrong sexual orientation, political beliefs etc.
I still remember vividly how upset my father was in the late 1950's when he caught me reading about communism. He was working for a defense contractor and was worried about losing his job. He was frightened because he had lived through the McCarthy Era blacklists.
The name "privacy policy" is exactly what it says it is. If people don't understand that, that's willful ignorance. What's in those privacy policies is a completely separate issue. Web sites may be criminals by obfuscating what their privacy policy is, but a privacy policy is exactly a policy, and that's the truth.
"One solution would be for the F.T.C., which is mandated to police deceptive corporate practices, to rule that only sites and apps that don’t share people’s information without their permission can use that phrase. Otherwise, they should use a more accurate label, such as “how we use your information.”"
Professor Turow, time to step out of your ivory tower and look at the real world, or at least take a walk over to Penn's law school. Non-deceptive commercial speech is protected by the Consitution's First Amendment, and the FTC thus would NEVER even think of adopting such a rule! Sites and apps are perfectly entitled to call these descriptions of how they obtain/use/share your info, 'privacy policies' -- i.e., here is how our practices affect the privacy of your info.
Labels are irrelevant: consumers won't read these regardless of what they are entitled; they have already voted with their wallets/pocketbooks and decided to shop and buy while ignoring them. A much better suggestion is found in another comment: instead of a one size fits all policy statement that is impossible to read and meaningless to the average consumer, why not generate a computer-driven, individually tailored statement, based on IP address and name, of what the company is doing with YOUR info RIGHT NOW: here is how we are NOW obtaining/using/sharing/ selling YOUR information.
1
I often scoff at the seriousness of having my on-line information sold out to others for their purposes. I supposed that they were advertisers and others seeking money or who want to influence me politically. I scoffed because there is no advertisement that can make me buy anything. Additionally, the advertisements I get seem to miss the mark almost every time. I should not fear those who are so inept that they can't even see that they waste their money. I scoff about being influenced politically because I find I agree with no one politically. I know all the right wing scams, and I know all the left wing baby talk. I usually vote against the GOP because of their greed, cruelty and hatred of education and science. But, I am not a democrat and could never be because as I said, the baby talk. Despite that, the only real progressives and populists (Bernie and Liz) reside in the DFL as imperfect as it is. So, I am left to vote in most cases for a weak candidate who doesn't represent me but is not a immoral sold out money grubber like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Thus I see no chance that I would be swayed politically since I feel I see the reality.
Unfortunately, I am wrong about the privacy policies. I should not fear my own information being sold, but I should fear others information being sold because most people are foolish enough and ignorant enough to be manipulated by the simplistic methods that I scoff at.
Let's Retire the Internet. That's the only real solution. It was supposed to make life better for all of us, but let's face it, it's been nothing but a massive disappointment. Our parents were pretty darn happy without it.
2
Changing misleading language like "privacy policy", and nixing nebulous phrases like "the cloud" and outright offensive slurs like "consumer", is always welcome. Even better would be regulations to prevent data collection that requires such policies without necessity and clarity.
For example, NO one needs your SSN, and YouTwitFace has no need to commit Real Name harassment (and its comments sections wouldn't be in ANY way improved if they did).
The only reason a company needs your name and address online is to ship a purchase; you'd generally need to visit a (reputable, non-Caymans) bank in person to open a first account with them, so that's a perfect time for the bank to give an ID number to use to open an online account (or just open said web account right then and there).
And if we normal people were half of the creepy the bAdChoices marketer cartel is, and imposed on others their "opt-out-or-else" terms, we'd share mugshots with Cosby and Weinstein on a magazine's MeToo piece. Sadly, the big browsers, and even the horribly defaced and DRM-friendly "HTML5" specification, are either maintained or funded by big internet marketers who each prove Bill Hicks correct.
Finally, publishers of free-to-pay[sic] online games should be required to post quarterly easy-to-read summaries of their finances and whether they'll maintain their games for another 3 months. People who buy their virtual goods should expect long-term joy, not for their new horse armor to be moot in a day.
1
“Disclosure and marketing policy” would work.
Don't think for one minute that our government will do anything that will guard our privacy. The corporations run the government with their legal bribery and the politicians don't want to lose out on their money.
In my opinion the most egregious form of privacy violation is drug testing. Having to pee in a cup for some penny ante job is demeaning and unnecessary. It should only be allowed where the public safety is an issue.
I have a feeling that the don't call list people are selling our names and numbers to businesses. I didn't used to get calls soliciting my business but I put myself on the do not call list anyway. Since then I have received telemarketing calls on a daily basis. Other people have said the same thing happened to them.
People need to realize that our privacy is a thing of the past and should be very circumspect about what they say or do. The most laughable are the people who think no one will ever see their email. I love it when politicians get caught with their drawers down by putting things in emails thinking they are private.
3
The survey results Mr. Turow reports are really eye-opening. His proposed remedy about "privacy" might help, but only a tiny bit.
I posit that even skeptical Americans don't pick up our pitchforks because we believe that Congress, the FCC, the FTC, etc., will not do anything significant to protect consumer privacy. They may may hold public hearings and make noise, but it's mostly for show — "sound and fury, signifying nothing". With regard to privacy and other consumer protections, American citizens exist in a state of Learned Helplessness.
The privacy statements I receive from "my" bank are short, clear, and focused. Yet when I finish them, I paraphrase each: "We'll do what we damn please with your data." That, not full disclosure to consumers, is the heart of the Privacy Problem.
2
Reading these comments, I am impressed by the firestorm that the major internet companies have put in place, and that their lawyers are happily pouring accelerant on. Comes the Revolution, I would certainly not want my resume to show that I had drafted EULAs or Privacy Policies; these sorts of things are likely to become decidedly uncool.
The Free Market, as a grand force, is amoral. (Notice I said “amoral”, not “immoral”, although there is plenty of that.) It doesn’t “naturally” look at you as “a fellow citizen to be morally served”, although there are many companies who do take that approach. (Tobacco companies are a premier example of the immoral money grubbing side of it.) Unfortunately, the number of companies who view you as a data point to be mined for specific interests and then bought and sold for manipulation and influence is pervasive and growing. I don’t trust any of them with my “privacy”, nor do I trust them to be diligent enough to make a good faith effort at avoiding being hacked. I am a blip on a spreadsheet and secretly adrift in a world that wants to take advantage of me. I get emails and phone calls all the time from nefarious entities who hope I’m gullible. I do occasionally shop at Target, but I don’t “trust” Target as a corporation. Sadly, it’s probably always been this way but now we have digital tools that vastly enhance the process.
2
Privacy policies are utterly incomprehensible by design. Target's says that third party companies may collect "certain information when you visit our websites or use our mobile applications." What? What information? What third party companies? What are they doing with the information? Can I see the information they have on me?
3
I had an interesting experience with one of the many ads inserted into every article I read in the Times. They were advertising shoes, and I liked one pair, so I clicked on it. Ended up deciding to buy the shoes, filled out the voluminous forms with my info, and printed my credit card number. My credit rating is over 800, and my credit cards are good. For some reason, the site wouldn't use the card and suggested I use another one. Foolishly, I did and the same thing happened. So there I am, with all my info printed on their questionnaire, twice, with nothing happening in terms of buying the shoes. All stopped there. When I realized that I had written down two credit card numbers, to no avail (in terms of ordering the shoes), I was very angry, and erased all the info on the form (for all the good that did, since they had both credit card numbers). Fortunately, so far there has been no attempt on either of my cards, but it is the principle of the thing. Since that time, when I read my Times (it comes in daily on my computer), I click on the "X" on every ad that appears throughout the articles I read. They are annoying, as they are designed to attract your attention, so I get rid of them. That may seem like a lot of effort just to rid myself of all the ads I can, but I find it annoying to have to pass through all those ads just to read my Times. Most shocking tho, was looking on Yahoo under my name and there was a statement telling what book I had just finished!
Privacy?
2
The reason websites have privacy policies isn't because of a "strong suggestion" from the FTC -- there is a California statute which requires consumer-facing websites to provide the kind of information a privacy policy typically has, accessible via a link. It's called the California Online Privacy Protection Act. There are a number of others too, including a recent Nevada statute.
Website owners have to disclose these things, and they do. If people don't read or understand them, that's really not the issue of the website owner. Honestly, if you put your email into a form or create an account, where do you think that information goes?
The real issue of privacy is the rampant use of third party tracking technologies to monitor online behavior, including precise location, for ad targeting. This information may then be accessible to the NSA and other government organizations without warrant.
The web has existed for almost thirty years -- if you don't get how information functions, that's on you.
1
What's needed is a "quick glance" (brief summary) of the privacy terms that most people will find objectionable so an informed decision can be made quickly. Since companies will clearly not voluntarily offer this user-friendly format anytime in the near future, hopefully some enterprising entrepreneur will.
3
I'm signed in now to comment, but I usually read the NYT in a private browser (Firefox Focus on an iPad) without signing in. (Don't know if NYT is tracking my reading via my device ID however.)
One problem is that I don't trust algorithms used by the NYT or any other well-regarded newspaper to decide FOR me what I'm "interested in." If the algorithm and data on my reading history were transparent I might be swayed, but I'd have to do the analysis first. I keep imagining Marketing majors and 25-year-old IT guys making my reading decisions for me. But even so, what if my preferences change? I read different news depending on the time of day, how I'm feeling, what I've imbibed, etc. I believe my interests have changed over the decades. Will young folks get locked in to their reading habits from a certain time? Do the algorithms set up a positive feedback loop that excludes more and more? To me, NYT commenters often seem a bit simplistic in their progressivism. Is that a product of Reading While Signed In?
In the meantime, I keep running across NYT articles that I missed. Why can't the browser stream or app just keep showing you more and more under a section, as you scroll and scroll?
2
Citi sent me a clear explanation of their "privacy notice" for our credit card. There are three options for yes/no. Everything else is a required yes for sharing our info.
This article makes me wonder if I should even bother to opt out of the three. Is it hopeless? And No! Not Target!
My husband and I want a credit card: a "no" to that is beyond the pale.
2
Wouldn't it be prudent to approach everything one sees and hears in media either mass or targeted as being designed either to sell you something or to prepare you to be more receptive to a subsequent sales pitch? Works for me.
2
Even if we read a “privacy policy” and largely understand it (this op-ed helps immensely), the real question is what can “we” do about it? As individuals, it seems, very little. I certainly don’t know enough about computers to minimize access. Rather, those who represent me, who provide the regulations needed to protect me, are the only recourse we have. They’re the people, mostly guys, and mostly Republicans.
And they ain’t doing their job.
5
@rjon Don't worry. Most of the people collecting, trading, and using your data are Democrats. And they work daily at becoming as diverse as possible. :)
Before the internet, direct mail (junk mail) marketers were selling our information to third parties. The buying and selling of mailing labels to target junk mail was a lively business, and still is.
Now, permanent records are kept of all marketable data. Thanks to Facebook, Google and tracking cookies, our preferences are known and sold, too.
Facebook did nothing in response to Europe's new privacy laws, except add a phrase to their terms and conditions... something like, "if you don't like our selling your data, go elsewhere.", fully knowing there is no "elsewhere" to go.
End users can go two ways on this.
1) Contract with and pay companies not to sell their data. At $5 or $10 a month, revenue could be significant. These "paying for privacy" users could download and store their data at home and ask that online data, and in servers, be destroyed on demand. Or...
2) Since our data is worth so much to so many, we could sell it for profit. A site similar to Facebook could be created, but anyone who wanted to buy our data would have to log in and pay us for it, after signing an agreement to our terms of use. End users would pay the Facebook-like company to maintain servers, purge data,
etc.
In both options, laws with hefty fines and a squad of data cops would be necessary to forbid internet trolling and data theft.
That leaves the hackers, spies and motivated propagandists to ferret out our information and profit by selling or using it. And they will.
1
@Lilou
"Facebook did nothing in response to Europe's new privacy laws, except add a phrase to their terms and conditions... something like, "if you don't like our selling your data, go elsewhere.", fully knowing there is no "elsewhere" to go."
Uh, yeah there is! It's a little thing called "reality." Remember 15 years ago when Facebook didn't exist? That's the answer.
@Samuel Russell--point taken. As an American abroad, time differences make FB handy. Here, I speak to and message French friends.
Your sarcasm avoids responding to the article's basic point of loss of privacy. What's your take on that?
Personal data in the internet era has never been private. Politicians, to a man ignorant of how the internet actually functions, were either too slow to do anything about it, or heavily invested in not doing anything about it. There is now too much money at stake to ever make people's data private; each person in that chain is getting a nice slice of everyone's data being used by anyone that wants it -- and mostly for doing absolutely nothing.
One would naturally think, then, that the individual should also get a slice of that pie. It's their personal data, after all. So, how 'bout making that a law to begin with, much like royalties.
If someone uses any of my photos without permission I can either ask for a royalty or demand they cease and desist. Why not also for my personal data, which is invariably more valuable that any of my photos and can be infinitely more damaging to me in the wrong hands.
4
Just assume anything produced by the government or a corporation is following Orwellian rules in naming such things. A "Privacy Policy" is one in which they carefully explain that you have none. "Customer Service" is the group which is intent on providing none. "Environmental Protection" is a group hellbent on destroying the environment. The list goes on.
I fully expect the government that is unraveling every protection put in place since Teddy Roosevelt to continue to deny that a consumer might want or need real privacy. So it is a Faustian bargain to use any internet site. You get convenience, but you pay for it by allowing a total invasion on your privacy. The government sees this as a real choice, not a sort of extortion. It will not go away in our current political climate.
19
@Cathy
Add to the list, "explanation of benefits" from your medical insurance company: little explanation, few benefits. And "Human Resources," which may sound worker-friendly but is there to protect the employer.
4
I've read several of the epic, tedious, so-called privacy agreements/contracts which you must click OK to use the site. It is a manipulative charade if 3rd parties predator info hounds are privy to your online life as is the case.
Also, the using of apps is just opening the gates to the developer's 3rd parties for ad intrusiveness.
Indeed, this "planet of the apps" has grown monstrous.
Essentially, you are the product that is being sold.
4
“End User License Agreement.”
In most cases, when signing a contract, the more words that it contains, the more restrictive it tends to be. If something is free, you are the product.
3
Yes, as it is implemented now, for sure, eliminate. You can have one, but this current kind is far too incompetent and uneconomical.
Actually we need to stop giving every kid a trophy just for effort... and really, there might not even be effort. Facebook giving info to an Academic for research purposes is laughable by those Professors who are at the top of Academia. Of course didn't Zuckerberg leave Harvard way too soon, to even learn what an Academic is? I say, Yes.
Coming in the Future: Product distribution: No Targets anymore. Have you heard of the Full Concierge Twilight Zone Snaks Machine? Soon to be in every Household, and even an individual portable carrying version, for Lunch. Not to just pick-on Target, but all of the other Corporations out there who are just not good enough to last against New Products planned to land on the Market.
Also, for Law Enforcement purposes, No More Off The Grid notions. No Such Thing As Off The Grid. And I like the idea that every inch of The Vatican will be monitored by The Law. No more child abuse. Also, Households.
Like a high tech computer connected to the brain, tracking the criminal's move. Follow World Law, and nothing to worry about. Probably a person will be protected more... especially their original music planned for a CD or DVD sale. And their children too. And no more spouse abuse. The evidence will be there. We, the people, will know what was said at The Trump Tower meeting... no problem.
1
And even for those of us who do read the small print, to what avail? Our only other option is to not get the service, which in most cases means we can't access the site...can't get internet, can't get phone service, can't get medical coverage, can't even get the NYT. Privacy policies are binary; Accept or No Go. Opt in or go live in a hole.
10
@BEGoodman
So true. There really is no choice. The author expresses surprise that consumers aren’t more outraged. Yet, the only option is to either not get basic services or pay more for basic and other services (in the case of not getting a Safeway or Raleys or Plenti cards or [fill in the blank] card to swipe for discounts. Increasingly, these same places are offering additional discounts if you scan an app. “Planet of the Apps” indeed. So now at more and more places, if you don’t allow the corporation to follow your every move via an app, you will pay more at the cash register.
Yesterday a note in red appeared on one of my e-mails "Sent 5 days ago. Follow up?" If this is not a total intrusion into my privacy I don't know what is.
I am angry and frustrated, but I have fiddled with all the permissions I can find. The simpler Google makes it, the more complicated it makes my life. I know Google reads my mail, checks my calendar and follows me around. But writing notes to me on my own e-mail seems totally without merit and without recourse.
And don't get me started on the new e-mail layout. What a mess!
2
Whatever new regulations might get imposed, companies will wriggle out and/or the reg's will never be enforced. The 'No Call' list is a joke; the CALM (Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation) Act is another joke; no doubt there are many more examples.
2
Privacy policies boil down to this: Companies do whatever they darn well please with your information (regardless of what they say), and hire an expensive PR firm to "apologize" if they get caught.
5
Turow: '... they should use a more accurate label, such as “how we use your information.”'
That's extremely inconvenient to say, and it is not a title but a statement about actions. Turow should have looked at Facebook's web site, which has a link named "Privacy". The linked page is titled "Data Policy".
Turow: '... possibly because companies realized that “privacy policy” embodied the ambiguity they wanted.'
The phrase "X Policy" is common in legal documents. A web search will find examples or variants of all of these:
* "Sexual Harassment Policy"
* "Smoking Policy"
* "Waste Disposal Policy"
* "Billing Policy"
* "Refund Policy"
* "Loan Policy"
* Etc.
1
Privacy on a public platform? That’s an oxymoron if there ever was one. If you want your stuff private don’t put it on a public platform.
3
Predatory capitalism. What will it take to change it?
3
BrainThink writes, "If you want strong privacy laws, vote Democratic in November." Don't make me laugh! The majority of the Democrats are in the pockets of the corporations; they just don't get quite as much money as the GOP.
3
Nope. Changing the title of the information disclosure policy won’t change anything. Except a sliver of the self satisfaction on the faces of corporate marketing mavens who love taking us for the fools we so consistently prove to be.
1
What does privacy mean in a world where people post their lunch online for posterity (?). Maybe Target provides these people a valuable service: everything about them-the good, the bad and the so-so-are now public record. Like a four dimensional selfie.
There is lots of outrage here. But let's not forget about Credit Card companies and their points "info" collection games. If you are okay with that for your gain but outraged by a website data collection and monetization practices, perhaps you have an empty argument.
Orwell taught us that words matter. Unfortunately, only big business took it to heart.
4
Using a VPN to hide your IP address and location adds to privacy and security.
To complete this comment my address was required, which was ironic in an article about privacy, or lack thereof.
Today I have set my VPN to be a proud Singaporean in the hope that their strict monitoring will flag this comment and this article.
Internet companies are the new Vikings, invading our privacy and exploiting our dumb passivity.
2
I see nothing at all misleading or untruthful in calling these things “privacy policies”. “You have no privacy when you visit our web site, and we will use any data we can collect about you for any purpose we please” is certainly a privacy policy. We should be talking about Federal regulation of what those policies should be, not about name changes.
2
It should be labeled "personally targeted surveillance policy."
"Anti-privacy policy" or "Privacy violations policy" even "Giving up your privacy policy" and "Privacy abuse policy" are more suitable terms. "No privacy policy" works too. "We already know you better than you do policy"
Now the only way to navigate the world anonymously in real life is by wearing a burqa, a mask and gloves - take public transportation, use cash and leave the iPhone at home.
Anonymity - the new villain for capitalists. Just like all those who pay up their credit cards in full every month are called deadbeats.
"Privacy policy, ... NOT"
4
Piracy Policy would be more accurate.
4
"Privacy policy" is Orwellian doublespeak.
3
Reads article. Considers reading NYT’s privacy policy. Realizes that’s too much effort.
3
The other misleading tech euphemism is "enhance the user experience." What this really means is that the tech company will be invading your privacy and snooping on you even more than usual so that you the user will have a better experience in the types of ads that the tech company imposes between you and the content you want to see.
The tech industry should offer a model where there is zero tracking and zero cookies.
16
While ambiguity and deceptiveness may be inherent in corporations’ use of the term “Privacy Policy,” the author’s proposal they retitle that disclosure “how we use your information” is not much of an improvement, because few people willl read boilerplate legal disclosures regardless of title.
The real issue is that anyone who actually takes the time to read a corporate privacy policy soon discovers that the language therein too ambiguous as to be meaningless. After all, how can one be upset about how a company is using “personal information” if they don’t know what “information” they company has collected, or how exactly it was obtained? Why be concerned about the sharing of “information” with “third parties” if those third parties are not identified?
Each privacy policy should be specifically tailored to the person reading it: here’s all of the data points we have collected about you, the method by which that data was obtained and the other companies we have given and/or sold the foregoing data to and when. All of that information is readily available in near real-time (if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be much use to the company collecting it). If corporations were forced to replace the boilerplate disclosures with exactly what information they’ve collected about each of us and to whom they provided it to, I suspect far more people would actually read privacy policies, and may come away with th knowledge to become the concerned citizens the author seeks.
11
@Tadcaster Fantastic idea. I do sort of read the terms but without actual concrete examples (or better yet, my own data), I really don't have a clear picture of what they're doing.
All privacy policies could be printed on a 3X5 card. "We will sell as much information as we can collect to whomever will pay us for it and further we will use it to manipulate you in as many ways as we can think of. (Couched in verbose legalese.)
12
I work in IT. In 2000, I discussed the need for a privacy policy with corporate counsel for a high-tech company in Silicon Valley. He said that such a policy is not legally required, but then when a privacy policy is voluntarily made available for public viewing, the company can be held liable for what is written in the policy. I then attended a legal presentation in San Francisco to understand how to write a privacy policy. One takeaway from the event: the terms and conditions should be written in plain language.
Here's an example of a privacy policy that is easy to read:
https://www.2waystrong.com/assets/pub/doc/TwowayStrong-PrivacyPolicy.pdf
A better phrase, if it needs to be changed, can be "Terms of Use Policy." The privacy part would be one section among other sections that describe how a company uses data in context of its operation to provide a service.
Mr. Turow's FTC rule solution is a good one. It would distinguish the good IT providers from the disingenuous ones. Not all websites are misleading in the use of personal data.
4
I am aware of what these privacy policies mean - but what will happen if I do not agree to their terms? The service provider may (will) refuse service. Am I willing to forego ordering through Amazon? Not a chance. The only real change would be for the regulatory bodies to prohibit a service provider from providing service because I refuse my private information to be shared. That would be something.
10
Privacy in the modern age?
Privacy probably cannot continue to exist. A person can be alone, have privacy in that sense, but not remain unknown, not be an unknown quantity in likely thought and action. All of human consciousness, the march toward knowledge, is an uncovering of the human and natural world, a terrible tension whereby humans above all other animals are privileged with being able to decide their social, indeed evolutionary, future but this also means each person is acutely aware of death and vainly struggles above probably all other forms of animal life for self-preservation, to persist long after the span of life.
Humans seem to not have the character to ethically grapple with this dilemma. The good in the human wants to uncover everything about the human and natural world (erase privacy) to chart the best course in the social and evolution sense possible under the circumstances, but the evil in the human wants to use all this knowledge and methodology of uncovering, which means of course loss of privacy, to surveil, predict, control, manipulate, deceive other humans and the natural world to its self-preservation, perpetuation long beyond lifespan advantage.
In short, privacy declines by increased consciousness, knowledge of our human situation, the possible courses we can take by increased awareness of ourselves, and the question is really whether human self-knowledge will lead to a path forward or a death struggle to control others and retain privacy.
As our lives become more dependent on digital services, and as corporations become more empowered to exploit consumers, we are left to contemplate the Faustian bargain we have made with the digital world.
7
Creating a new term won't change anything. The only solution to fixing our privacy issues would be to create laws forbidding companies from collecting and sharing our information.
It doesn't matter whether folks realize how our information is shared. Try to find a company that doesn't share it.
8
@Butch
Yeah, creating such a regulation is really likely to happen in our corporate run government. Our government that is busy dismantling every kind of safety protection they can get a paying sponsor for - clean air, clean banking, clean water, clean food, etc., etc. If there’s money to be made, there’s a corporate lobbyist and congressman working on getting rid of any rules costing money for their bosses.
3
"Privacy" is taking a shower and no one is watching you.
"Data protection" is taking a shower and being monitored by a bank of video cameras, infrared monitors, motion sensors, and microphones -- each of which is staffed by dozens of people who have promised not to use or share the information gathered except for the numerous purposes they say are legitimate.
15
I'm sure the problem isn't the name, but the content of the policies. Privacy policies *are* intended to be a declaration of how information businesses protect private information, and so they should be. The fact that businesses do no such thing is the problem. I want those businesses to have privacy policies, and I want them to be policies for protecting my privacy. Changing the name to reflect an unappealing reality is exactly the wrong solution.
2
But making the name reflect the reality might motivate people to want a change in the laws. As it is, they apparently don't see any need.
5
The use of any electrical or electronic device to transmit data enables interested persons to receive the transmission, record the transmission and exploit any information they can glean from the transmission. The only question is whether the data transmitted is worth the cost of receiving, recording and extracting that data.
Digitalization and the internet significantly lower the cost of receiving, recording and exploiting any data you choose to digitalize and transmit.
The landline telephone system was our first electrical and electronic data transmission system used on demand by almost every person. We classified Ma Bell a public utility and had no problem regulating the telephone industry. Ma Bell had access to, and the ability to record, every number we dialed and every word we spoke into the telephone. Anyone with access to a junction box or a substation could record the numbers we dialed and the words we spoke.
We have chosen a different regulatory scheme for the internet and cell phones. We do have the ability, but not the will, to classify the internet a public utility and ensure that it is managed in the public interest.
13
The privacy policy is always in dense legally correct wording which is intentionally hard to read. It is very long so that reading it slowly to ensure you get the real meaning will take much longer than the time you can afford. To read all the privacy policies applied to your use of the services is impossible.
16
Although a rose by any other name may smell as sweet, without the cheap perfume afforded by the euphemistic term “privacy policy,” the policy of required acceptance of corporate entitlement to commodification of personal data in fact stinks. The “agreements” that users are required to accept for online services and software are typically off-putting if not impenetrable by design, primarily aiming to deflect attention and objection to selling user data that users would likely prefer to remain private if they truly had a choice. Unfortunately, this is just another example of our Orwellian age in which “truth is not truth” and “privacy is not privacy.”
Thank you, Prof. Turrow, for calling attention to the problem, challenging the term "privacy" in our current dialect of Newspeak and proposing a reasonable solution through FTC regulation.
10
I could not agree more with this post. Privacy policies are not written to be easily understandable by non-attorneys, especially by people without a college degree. They are written by lawyers in language designed to obfuscate the fact that companies are harvesting and selling our personal data. I am a privacy professional and it is not realistic to expect a layperson to read and understand the privacy policy of *every* app and website they use. Companies know this and take advantage of of the average consumer's ignorance.
11
All that Professor Turow says here is true, but the complete truth is that it is much worse than the story he tells. It's not even possible to know the whole horror story. Once anyone provides a piece of information about themselves or reveals their behavior by shopping, surfing or searching online, that information exists in the Cloud and is never going away, ever. It immediately starts to spread out from server to server through sharing of information with third parties or even backups to other servers and hacks that will never be disclosed. There is no way to scrub servers to get any piece of personal information completely eliminated from the Internet since much of the data is off on personal laptops or portable drives that employees take home with them. Everyone by now should realize that even if a company's privacy policy does sound as if it protects their personal data, privacy policies change, and what is now seemingly protected is given away frivolously tomorrow without notification. All companies have made privacy policies so long and complex, so full of legalese that the average person can't find anything that might be of interest to them. Plus, you don't know what you are looking for that might be damaging. All companies legal departments are crooks as are their marketing departments. They find ways to cover their unethical conduct and develop intellectual scenarios to absolve themselves. It's a losing battle and no one knows what the endgame is.
16
This is a prime example of "disclosure" as a failed means of protecting consumers. The things you care about, who,what and how, online companies are collecting and selling information about you are buried deep inside the policies. Ever notice the small window that opens and How you have to scroll down? Designed to make it hard to read. Opting out is burdensome, if it's even possible. Did you opt out of targeted ads? They're still collecting, storing and selling your info. Just not using it to show you targeted ads. We need to be notified about the specific info being collected, and who it's being shared with, when it happens, not some generalized boilerplate.
11
Of course it's boilerplate--because all the policies are the same, regardless of how long they take to say it: everyone of them will sell everything to anyone
1
The simple fact of the matter is that all internet surveillance and information trafficking is dishonest. Its purpose is to glean information about you that you do not intend to reveal, for the purpose of subjecting you to manipulation.
34
Absolutely "privacy policy" means "we are going to monetize your information anyway we reasonably can". But without laws or just saying NO to almost any internet use, what are we to do? Will these companies negotiate changes on a personal level? Of course not. If we don't want our information sold to everyone, only laws can protect us. And just try some of the websites like www.familytreenow.com to see what personal information if available about you. Scary and Creepy.
7
The EU, that horrible, terrible place you know,passed a law in May 2018 that strives to protect ones online private details. Of course they will have a battle with Google and Facebook et. al., but they have shown in the past they are willing to take that fight. Right now FB and Google are being sued to the tune 8.8 billon dollars by privacy advocates thanks to the new law. So maybe there is hope.
34
"Privacy Policy" is similar to burglars declaring a "Home Safety Policy" after entering houses.
10
Federal law should, in a country where the people governed have input, forbid any company or corporation from gathering personal information beyond what is necessary for any single business transaction.
Federal law should also absolutely forbid any 3rd party from collecting information on individuals with whom they did not have a business transaction.
If only we lived in a country where the people governed had input...
36
We don’t live in a country where people have input. The laws regarding personal data collection are the desires of deep-pocket corporate donors.
4
Does anyone have any options if they don't agree to the privacy policies? Unless you agree to the companies' policies you won't be allowed to visit their website or purchase anything online. It is true even for the NYT if you want to become an online subscriber.
Even if you ditch the computer and smartphone your privacy isn't really protected. Banks have people's information. Most likely you can't even open a bank account, even you physically go to a bank office, unless you agree to their privacy policies. Health insurance have privacy policies, and so do clinics and hospitals.
Furthermore, government has your information. Do you have a driver's license? The DMV has your information. While the DMV may not sell your information, it is usually the easiest way for hackers to get to your "true" private information.
25
They don't call it fine print for nothing - it means you can't see what it says. Often you have to click on a link or check a box to proceed, so you do. I have my own Policy. If I do not know I agreed to something, I did not agree to it.
17
The term "privacy policy" should be updated to more accurately reflect exactly what privacy means. The same goes for many current catch-phrases and slogans. They've become hackneyed and consequently meaningless. One becomes increasingly desensitized and disturbingly apathetic. #MeToo. Who now? What for? It's already lost its punch.
2
Whoever tightens this "privacy policy" to REQUIRE opt-in is the person/party I will vote for in the future.
22
My spouse just discovered, after months of fruitless on-line "help", the reason that pictures thought to be saved on the hard drive couldn't be uploaded to a picture book site. The pictures were being stored not on the personal drive but on an Apple cloud site, contrary to our preference.
I have had a similar experience, personal files stored on a cloud drive, contrary to my preferences.
Microsoft Windows 10 is the ultimate spy machine, loading everything from your computer to their servers, "to serve you better".
34
@Look Ahead - Ah yes, Windows 10. When I first get a computer with Windows 10 I turn off about 20 default settings before I even connect with the internet.
15
Absolutely correct. It is well worth a little time & effort to correct & monitor these settings. Contrary to popular belief - a person CAN halt, or completely stop the endless upgrades that slowly (sometimes quickly) destroy your machine's performance.
For a real Shocker dig into your unintentional location settings & history in Google. You won't be pleased ...
@Look Ahead Google, including the Chrome browser, Chrome books, and Android devices are much worse.
1
Instead of 'privacy policy', it should be called 'personal data marketing and sales policy'.
59
Perhaps too it is time to retire the word "government".
A detailed examination reveals "corportate control" to be more accurate.
Additionally, "campaign contribution" should be replaced with the far more accurate "political bribe."
116
Well said Wishfixer! Totally agree.
@WishFixer.....you sum it up.... And 'political bribe' is precisely what our Supreme Court denied was the function of big corporate donations. They labeled this 'free speech' per 1st Amendment. Many Americans reject this preposterous distortion.
Our elected govt is regulated by corporations, not the other way around.
Ex Pres Jimmy Carter said the US system “is now an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations or getting elected,” (for president or other offices.)
Princeton’s Martin Gilens’ research showed “only the desires of the richest are reflected in lawmaking….the average American has a near zero impact on policy.”
NYTimes front page 2 Aug 2015: “Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving.”
So our privacy doesnt mean much in our big money system.
Conservative fantasies of business “self-regulation” continue to dominate our politics and severely handicap all our lives. Government in a constitutional republic is supposed to act in service of its citizens, not its budding oligarchs.
34
Much as I agree with Professor Turow, I would like to see the word "conservative" retired. There are very few "conservatives" left in public life. The ones we read about daily are radicals, not conservatives. By calling them "conservatives" we discount the level of danger that they represent to the republic.
69
Exploitation of your information by corporate entities is known as a "privacy policy", just like a law allowing for increased pollution of our air is known as the "clear skies initiative". Yes, it is a brave new world, my friend. Big Brother is alive and well, but it is not so much the government as it is big business. Nothing comes without a price. The internet, email, fun new apps are not really free. The cost is your very identity.
For example, Yahoo sent me an "enhanced" privacy policy some months ago. I read it and was horrified. They "enhanced" things alright, but it wasn't my privacy. Rather, they enhanced their ability to use, sell, and own my data, just like many other companies do. By simply clicking "I agree", I would be givi up many more rights, such as any rights to control my personal information. I waive any right to sue them in a court of law, opting instead for mandatory, binding arbitration by a "mutually agreeable" arbitrator of their choosing, in a forum state (not mine, of course) of their choosing.
After several months, I still have not agreed to their terms. I suspect they will eventually give me an ultimatum to "click" or kill my account. That is why I looked around for and found several email providers that do not "protect" my privacy quite as vigorously as does Yahoo. Yes, I pay a small monthly fee, but unless you want to virtually give up who you are for the low, low price of free email or some useless app, I suggest you do the same.
15
@Tom
I, also, have not clicked on Yahoo's agreement. I still check my group's email but cannot access my group postings.
The change was solely to be able to share my info with many other websites, ala Disqus.
I forsee stopping using Yahoo and the information our group members share with each other. I know of no alternatives. I would pay for the service, but alas, they make more money monetizing me.
2
I continue to argue that one cannot understand America until one has read "1984" by George Orwell. It should be required reading in school.
Why are there a million "privacy policies" out there, one for every website for every business? Why not just legislate one privacy law for all? Thanks for letting us know the answer - which happens to be the same answer for every effort to undermine regulation...
26
"Why not just legislate one privacy law for all?"
Because different businesses have different markets and customers.
However, there are uniform codes*, so there could, in principle, be standards for privacy policies.
* Google "Uniform Commercial Code" and "International Fire Code" for specific examples.
3
If you read the privacy policies of sites online and then try to opt out, you cannot. It's their way all the way. When banks and other entities send out their privacy policies there are very few pieces of information that you can control and almost no way to say no to your information being shared. The information highway works one way in America and it's detrimental to our privacy, period.
Apply for a job online. They can ask you for your SSN and make it a mandatory field. That ought to be illegal. They can ask you when you graduated from high school and college which is a great method to determine approximately how old you are. Then potential employers and recruiters force you to sign up for an account with them so they can send you, guess what, ads, useless bits of advice, emails requesting you to recommend people for the jobs they advertise, etc.
The only person that has a hard time getting hold of the information collected on you is you. That should change. Companies should not be allowed to solicit our SSNs, our ages, our marital status, or anything else. It's our information and we should be able to keep it private. It might inconvenience companies but their inconvenience is nothing compared to the inconvenience of identity theft or the worries involved when databases are hacked because they are poorly protected.
82
@hen3ry And as my daughter recently found out when applying for summer jobs, your phone number also gets sold to scammers. Kid now gets pinged multiple times a day, and T-Mobile's Scam Block is totally ineffective against these callers. We are going to have to change her phone number and get her a Google Voice number for job hunting.
(And even after all her searching, she keeps getting told she's only 17, so they can't hire her yet, even though there are plenty of low-level jobs around here that she could do. I suppose next year, they won't hire her because she doesn't have experience.)
6
@hen3ry
Potential employers can also require applicantsto agree to a credit check. If permission is not given the online form won't be accepted. That should be outlawed as well.
10
I totally agree. “Notification of Personal Information Uses,” in 10 point font, written at 8th grade level, and with “opt in” requirements rather than opt out for sharing or sale of personal information or use for marketing. That’s the standard we have to live by in the healthcare industry. If revenue stream is their concern, offer “free” use in exchange with use of information permitted, and service fee for no use of information (or ads). People are paying $100 or more per month for movie channels. Surely many would be willing to pay, say, $25 per month to use a package of Google, Facebook and Twitter.
20
By all means, let’s have a more accurate and truthful label than ‘Privacy Policy’. But unless it changes to ‘our malicious use of your information,’ don’t expect anyone to read the document. Such policies are laden with the most mind-numbing prose and nebulous terminology that are impenetrable to all but the most introverted reader. I propose that any policy statement be limited to 100 words and presented in clear, everyday English. Maybe then enough people will read the things and demand that companies get serious about real privacy.
23
@Ockham9 "Surveillance Policy"
Ah, but we need more deregulation. After all, corporations almost always do the right thing on their own! Besides, even if companies track us online, it is all anonymous data.
Ha!
29
I can't speak to whether large corporations use the phrase conspiratorially in hopes that people don't empower themselves to better understand how their information is being collected and used. I do agree a better phrase is needed especially if the average internet user is ignorantly assuming that "Privacy Policy" means so sort of guarantee. I find it distressing that that's what they think a privacy policy is. Though I have my doubts that changing the phrase will really change the fact that people simply don't read those policies.
"Information Practice Statement" is a horrible phrase. I would assume it wasn't adopted, not for a nefarious reason, but because it's not any more transparent or clear than "Privacy Policy".
What I’d love to see instead of legalese is a simple list of sites (up to 1000) that my data gets shared with with a label: personal vs anonymized sharing.
17
Thank you for this article. It’s always annoyed me that companies push privacy polices as some kind of customer protection, when they’re really not. They’re not legally binding, and companies can change them at any time. The ONLY reason we all got deluged with privacy policy update emails over the summer was because the EU imposed GDPR which, by law, requires companies to notify customers of their rights. And what do we have in the US? Zip. And as long as Trump and the GOP is around, we’ll continue having our privacy violated for profit by the corporations we interact with, whether we like it or not. If you want strong privacy laws, vote Democratic in November.
12
Let's ENFORCE the popular meaning of "privacy policy".
10 word, unambiguous regulations please, where companies pay 10% of their annual holdings (earnings, and everything they hide their profits with, to escape taxes).
1
The thrust of this op-ed is that ubiquitous sharing of “private” information gathered by social media and commercial websites is 1) bad, and 2) other than inevitable. It’s not necessarily “bad” and it IS inevitable. The price of the interactive tools we increasingly rely on to lead our lives more conveniently IS that the information is bought, sold, used to profile us and target us for political proselytizing and commercial pitches. Without that exploitation, a lot of the tools we use every day wouldn’t generate the profitable economic activity required to incentivize people to BUILD the tools and improve them.
Let’s NOT retire the phrase “Privacy Policy”. Such policies inform people (willing to read such policies) of how information they voluntarily provide to online mechanisms is used and exploited. The implied premise that people are entitled to protection absent any effort on their part to consider what information they choose to volunteer lies at the heart of this sickening attempt to free Americans from any obligation to actually MANAGE their lives.
Target and Amazon do not force you to buy products pitched as a result of profiling exercises, and it would be hard for you to give up your Facebook posts that document how you ache at the injustice of people in this country who live in nice houses and can afford attractive goomahs while others live in hovels and must make do with their spouses.
Grow up, America. MANAGE your lives.
6
@Richard Luettgen: I agree with you entirely. For the last decade of my career, I taught my high school students a simple mantra: "Use the technology; don't let it use you." Then I taught them some basic strategies for combating propaganda, misinformation, targeted marketing, scams, and the like. I also drilled into them the most basic strategy of all, which is to PAUSE before you click. It just requires some heathy skepticism, true critical thinking, personal responsibility, and self-discipline. The technology is here to stay, and lack of privacy is baked into it; it's our job to manage that.
3
@Richard Luettgen
It sounds like ''Grow up'' means ''obey.'' Obey your corporate minders, surrender your democratic power and responsibility to them, they know what's best. The opposite of what I would call adult responsibility, or ''managing'' one's life.
@Richard Luettgen
The surrender of privacy that you so strongly urge could
prove extremely valuable to a dictator -- who would know everything about you. You do something he doesn't like? Suddenly you can't get a mortgage, or a bank loan, or your kids can't get into the top school you aim for...
It's happening in China today...as reported in Time
Magazine last Fall.
Magazine last fall.
In our jargon-rewarding culture a simple and clear article is a pleasure to read. Funky Irishman's corollary is important: we assume incorrectly that "privacy policy" means privacy for ALL our personal information, AND we assume that at least it means privacy for SOME of our personal information. Privacy is as much privacy as is profitable, which is none. Suits replaced skateboards a while ago. In some cases no doubt, the riders simply ditched the boards and put on suits.
A picky detail: are there memes other than stubby fingers on keyboards to indicate an article is about technology? Blinking lights and white lab coats would be refreshing now and then.
5
There actually is a way to keep your privacy largely intact:
1) Don't join social media at all. If you must use it, ONLY use it through a web browser on a computer.
2) On your computer, install adblock plus, privacy badger, and random user agent in every browser.
3) Make sure that those three extensions are enabled in your browser's "incognito mode"
4) Only use websites that you worry are going to track in you in "incognito mode." This means you will have to log into sites like facebook (no cookies from prior sessions) but it also means those sites won't see anything about your activity from your browsers memory or in other windows that aren't incognito.
I've been following these basic guidelines and my google and facebook data sets were minuscule when I downloaded them. I ditched my smart phone 2 years ago for a dumb phone that only does calls and texts and never looked back. Being on the internet all the time is not psychologically healthy at any rate, and I'm on the computer frequently enough that I can do what I need to. I plan in advance a little more, and occasionally print something or write it down. And if I have to share a photo or video, it takes a couple of extra steps. In exchange my privacy is fairly well intact.
62
The real question nowadays is does a "Right To Privacy" even exist in this new digital age?
To my mind if I use an app or website to check out products and look around I have no problem if they make note of anything I do Specifically on that app or website ONLY! I do not think it is right for these companies to snoop around and gather info from anywhere else. Requiring me to give wholesale access to any of my "private" personal info to use the site is unfair and should be outlawed.
13
Once in a while I read these things. Especially those issued by my credit card and insurance companies. I came quickly to the conclusion that my privacy is the last thing these companies are interested in protecting. People just dont care or are tired of getting excised about how we are abused by our corporate masters.
36
Never has so much has been given up for so little.. We are the product. Best not to allow your browsers to link search history, and don't log into personal accounts on work... Don't accept third party cookies, and use ram (or ram disk) for your temp files.. And of course remember your mom (and ex significant other) works for your internet service provider :-)
And cross your fingers.
5
I think for most people (who ever actually take pause to think about it in the first place, other than just clicking through) they expect that their browsing history and the like are going to be shared.
For most, I believe they have the conception that their private information such as where they live, their phone number and private financial information is to be kept within the architecture of the online company they have given it to, with all else being common. This is not necessarily the case.
Like all marketing and advertising (designed to give a very specific impression with very specific wording), it is up to us, the consumer, to decide if we are going to be swayed or not.
In many cases (if not all) we just do not care. - much like are participation in Democracy itself. - just the way the powers that be like it.
Read the fine print.
20
@FunkyIrishman
My comment disappeared, so I'll reply here.
The biggest problem is a fundamental lack of knowledge of the underlying philosophy of privacy and rights. We don't teach that thoroughly or early enough. Then, there is the problem of deceptive wording and poor critical reading that compound the first set of issues.
Things should have radically changed when Edward Snowden's came on the scene. They didn't.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to erode our rights, privacy included.
--
https://www.rimaregas.com/2018/08/07/greed-malfeasance-never-sleep-blog4...
21
@Rima
Aye, they should have radically changed, but like always, half believed Snowden a traitor, and half believed him to be a patriot, so again, a wash.
Even more fundamental than privacy rights, is the continued erosion of education itself. The internet was supposed to be the great equalizer opening the world up to itself, but now that there are going to be two highways, one will hold the information at a cost, and the other will be inundated with cute cat videos.
Sigh...
1
@FunkyIrishman
Over 60% of respondents failed this in a recent Pew study
http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/news-statements-quiz/
Take the quiz then read the report.
Frightening!
1